1977
DOI: 10.1097/00043764-197702000-00005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Causes of Death Among Construction Machinery Operators

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

1979
1979
2003
2003

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Decoufle et al observed an increased risk of lung cancer in construction machinery operators who were members of an operating engineers union and who died in 1967 (proportional mortality ratio = 1.35, p < 0.05). 13 In a proportion mortality study of 15 843 deaths among unionised construction operating engineers in the USA by Stern and Haring Sweeney, the proportional cancer mortality ratio (PCMR) for lung cancer was slightly above 1 (PCMR = 1.14; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.19). 14 There was no association with duration of membership in the union (a proxy for duration of exposure).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Decoufle et al observed an increased risk of lung cancer in construction machinery operators who were members of an operating engineers union and who died in 1967 (proportional mortality ratio = 1.35, p < 0.05). 13 In a proportion mortality study of 15 843 deaths among unionised construction operating engineers in the USA by Stern and Haring Sweeney, the proportional cancer mortality ratio (PCMR) for lung cancer was slightly above 1 (PCMR = 1.14; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.19). 14 There was no association with duration of membership in the union (a proxy for duration of exposure).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This study, like all epidemiologic studies, had some potential limitations and strengths that need to be considered. For the PMRs to be considered a good approximation of the SMRs, the all-cause mortality rate should be the same for both the group under study (UURWAW members) and the comparison group (U.S. population); that is, the allcause SMR should be 100 [Decou¯e et al, 1977]. If the allcause SMR for the roofers would actually be greater than 100, the PMR analysis would tend to underestimate the true risk and might not detect all real associations (and vice versa, if the overall SMR was less than 100).…”
Section: Limitations and Strengthsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the authors reported a significant trend toward increasing lung cancer risk with duration of union membership as well as a statistically significant elevated risk of lung cancer among all retired members (SMR 5 1.64) and among those retiring at or after age 65 (SMR 5 1.30). Decouflé et al [1977] conducted a PMR study of Operating Engineers selecting those members where a death benefit had been paid in 1967. The overall risk from cancer of all sites was significantly elevated, at 1.12 (P , 0.01); this result was similar to the PMR of 1.11 (P , 0.01) observed in our analysis.…”
Section: Lung Cancermentioning
confidence: 99%